[Taxacom] ICZN procedure question

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

From: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
To: <dipteryx at freeler.nl>; <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>

>> So there is no "8.6 ...  it must contain a statement that copies
>> (in the form in which it is published) have been deposited in at
>> least 5 major publicly accessible libraries which are identified
>> by name in the work itself." ?
>> * * *
>
> I said:
>
> "Well, the Codes do not currently make such stipulations for paper-based
> copies"
>
> My inclusion of the qualifier "paper-based" was not accidental.

***
You said a great number of things, but that remark was not only beside
the point, but was not what I was responding to. (However, do see
Rec. 30A.2 in the botanical Code.)
* * *

>> I am not saying that is not an option, but it would be a much
>> bigger step than the one I suggested. It may well be that
>> the world is not ready for such a big step.

> I think you've hit the nail on the head.  But it's not the "world" -- it's
> a subset of the world, who represent the consituents served by the Codes.
> I doubt we'd find unanimous agreement on what the scope of that subset is.
> Taxonomists, to be sure.  But taxonomists are not the only consumers of
> scientific names.  Depending on how much the decisions are biased to serve
> one constituency over another, the "best" answer may vary.  Even if we
> limited t to just practicing taxonomists, we have a great diversity of
> viewpoints (as is evident from these ongoing discussions).

***
Yes, we are dealing with subsets. The majority view (the largest subset
of 'the world') would be in favor of eliminating the Codes altogether,
or putting it at a remove and just have Official Lists of Current Names
issued by a Respected National Taxonomic Agency, with all the finicky
stuff (taxonomic or nomenclatural) kept safely out of sight, behind the
scenes. In fact that is what is happening at a fairly large scale.

There is only a minute minority (a very small subset of 'the world')
who care about the process of amending the nomenclatural Codes.
Within this subset there is a justified degree of reservation when it
comes to change, very much preferring small, incremental changes
over big, bold steps.
* * *

> But I will say this:  having observed and particupated in this
> conversation for many years, the trend is clearly shifting over time
> towards pro-electronic.  I have some (mostly obvious) ideas about
> why this is.  I think the point made by Doug and Lyubo and others
> is correct: the transition from paper-based to electronic forms of
> communication *and* information archiving is inevitable.  What
> we're really arguing about now is: "Are we there yet?"; and, if not,
> then what's the best compromise approach when starting the
> transition?

***
Or perhaps, rather
"What can be made to work, with adequate safeguards?"

Paul